Some Conservatives could still face charges over the "In and Out" election scheme in 2006, that allowed them to undemocratically spend more money in the final days of the campaign; but also cheat taxpayers out of almost a million dollars.
A federal prosecutor is still considering whether to bring charges over contentious advertising purchases made by the Conservative Party during the 2006 election. Director of Public Prosecutions Brian Saunders was referred the file on the Tories' "in and out" advertising buys in June 2009, but, more than a year later, has yet to say whether he'll initiate a prosecution under the Canada Elections Act.
Corbett's investigators raided Conservative party headquarters in Ottawa in April 2008 and, aided by the RCMP, seized boxes of documents and computer records. They also hired forensic auditors and outside legal counsel to help unravel the trail of wire transfer, expense claims and invoices from the campaign. The dispute between the Tories and the Elections Canada centres on $1.3 million in radio and TV ads the party purchased during the campaign.
I've been trying to keep track of the ongoing court case surrounding the "In and Out" scandal. There has been nothing new, but just a reminder that it is far from settled.
After one victory, and Pierre Poilievre sticking out his tiny chest and claiming it was over, Elections Canada has said "Not so fast".
A court ruling initially hailed as a triumph by the Conservatives turns out to contain a bitter pill that could poison the electoral prospects of three senior cabinet ministers. ... the Tories are also appealing, hoping to strike down a little-noticed section of the judgment that would mean up to 10 candidates — including Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, Natural Resources Minister Christian Paradis, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Josee Verner and former minister Maxime Bernier — exceeded their campaign spending limits in 2006. If the ruling is allowed to stand, the four sitting Tories and up to six former candidates could face charges. If convicted, they could be barred from running again or even be barred from sitting in the House of Commons, much less cabinet ... "Apart from any conviction," the agency goes on, "this option would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election of the four candidates ... who are current members of Parliament."
Hopefully this will be settled before the next election.
The judge has ruled in the case of two Ref-Con candidates whose claims for rebates had been denied, because of irregularities in the election funding scheme, dubbed the "In and Out".
Pierre Poilievre immediately stated that the matter was settled.
Not so fast Pierre. The matter is far from settled.
Because the legality of the actual scheme had not yet been determined, Elections Canada could not withhold rebates. However, should they pursue this further, and I believe they will, anyone claiming a rebate might still be in trouble.
Remember that several were suspicious from the start.
The Federal Court ruling today dodged the issue of the legality of the Conservatives’ 2006 federal election ad spending scheme issue even more than Aaron hints at, as the ruling went in favour of the candidates only because the basis of the “balance of convenience” principle means that they should be reimbursed for their full expenses now because the legality of the scheme is yet to be determined.
So, in order to have the issue of the legality of the scheme ruled upon by the courts, Elections Canada must proceed with a prosecution through the Director of Public Prosecutions, and/or an appeal of today’s ruling to the Federal Court of Appeal.
In the meantime, based on this ruling and to save court resources, Elections Canada should reimburse all expenses to all the candidates who participated in the scheme (again, while at the same time prosecuting them all).
It is in the public interest to have the legality of the scheme ruled upon by the courts so that everyone will know what is legal for the next, and future, federal elections, so hopefully Elections Canada will appeal and/or proceed with a prosecution.
"... no other English-speaking nation with a system of government like ours — not Britain, Australia or New Zealand — has ever had its parliament prorogued in modern times, so that its ruling party could avoid an investigation, or a vote of confidence, by other elected legislators.
Only three times has this happened, all in Canada — first in 1873, when Sir John A. Macdonald asked the governor general to prorogue Parliament, in order to halt a House of Commons probe into the Pacific Scandal. Lord Dufferin gave in to the demand, but when Parliament reconvened Macdonald was forced to resign.
No prime minister dared use prorogation to such effect again, until Stephen Harper convinced Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to suspend Parliament in 2008, so the Conservatives could evade a confidence vote.
About 12 months later, he did it again. Harper claims he shut down Parliament to "recalibrate" his government, but his critics say he did so to escape the rising pressure of the Afghan-detainee affair and its investigation by a House of Commons committee. (By Richard Foot, Canwest News Service, January 16, 2010)
That's it in a nutshell. Parliament was prorogued because the parliamentary committee was getting too close to uncovering the truth abut what Harper knew and when on the torture of Afghan Detainees.
But there was actually another time when Steve shut down a committee that was investigating his party's wrong doing. This involved the "in and Out" election financing scheme, that is still under investigation.
Dr. Joan Russow has suggested that Stephen Harper has no legal right to govern, with an ongoing criminal investigation against his party.
There should never have been an election in Canada. The Governor General should have refused to accept the Right Honourable Steven Harper’s request for an election when there was an outstanding investigation into the fraudulent practices of the Conservative Party during the 2006 election. The investigation was underway by the Parliamentary Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. With the calling of the election, the Committee was disbanded. In addition, there was a similar investigation by Elections Canada.
CP Wire Tim Naumetz OTTAWA -- Three Conservative campaign agents ignored summonses they received more than a week ago to appear at a Commons inquiry into the Tory "in and out" advertising affair, MPs were told Wednesday. The chair of the Commons ethics committee also identified a fourth former Conservative campaign agent who informed a House official he and others who worked on the 2006 election campaign were instructed by the party not to testify.
Combined with earlier comments from yet another Conservative -- who said a party official informed him and other potential witnesses from Toronto they could ignore the summonses if they wished -- the news fuelled angry reactions from opposition MPs.
Wednesday marked the first time Liberal committee chair Paul Szabo has identified the specific agents whose comments have sparked accusations of a "conspiracy" in Conservative ranks to subvert the inquiry into $1.3 million in campaign advertising expenses.
Szabo quoted from a report he received from a bailiff firm the committee hired in an attempt to compel the former campaign agents and defeated candidates to appear.
It said a Conservative who was the official agent for Heritage Minister Josee Verner, another who was the campaign agent for Tory MP Sylvie Boucher, a parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and another who was official agent for Conservative MP Daniel Petit were all served summonses by Aug. 6.
Szabo also read from a report prepared by the committee's chief clerk that quoted another official agent, Marc Duval, saying he and others had been told to stay away. "He informed me that the party has told them to decline all invitations," the report quoted Duval as saying. Duval, who was the campaign agent for Tory MP Luc Harvey, could not be reached by summons-bearing bailiffs after that because he left for vacation, said Szabo.
The latest disclosures, which came on top of similar statements the previous day from the official campaign agent for a Toronto riding, prompted calls from opposition MPs for sanctions against those who failed to turn out for the hearings.
"It sets a terrible precedent for the committee, that people can just thumb their noses at us," said NDP MP Pat Martin. "Somebody co-ordinated this, it was a boycott of our committee." More than a dozen witnesses who were scheduled to appear Wednesday afternoon also failed to show, including Patrick Muttart, a close aide to Harper, and other senior party officials or former party officials.
The committee was into its third day of intermittent testimony over a Conservative advertising scheme that allegedly allowed the party to exceed its 2006 election spending limit by $1.1 million.
The party transferred thousands of dollars into the campaign bank accounts of 67 selected candidates and quickly transferred the money back out, ostensibly in payment for radio and television advertising on behalf of the candidates. But executives with the advertising firm that placed the ads testified Wednesday they dealt only with the national party.
They also said that at one point during the campaign they were so concerned about the legality of the transactions they held two conference calls with party officials and their lawyer.
One of the Conservative candidates who did show up for the hearing told MPs he and his official agent withheld their participation in the program until they were convinced it was legal.
Steve Halicki, the defeated Conservative candidate in the Toronto riding of York South Weston, nonetheless admitted it was presented as a way for his campaign to fill its coffers with money it could not raise in the riding.
De Mastro's little hissy fit here is rich. These Reformers are guilty of the some of the worst sexist and racist comments ever, but more importantly, they actually act on them.
Well I guess he had another blowhard blowup yesterday because an MP twittered that he was ... hmmm ... rotund. Her tweet was actually about Del Mastro's outburst over so-called criminal activity that is discrediting Parliament. He might want to cool it. The "In and Out" court case starts Monday. Del Mastro is also in trouble at home over a little (alleged) scam he was running.
"With the air of a grievously wounded martyr, del Mastro read the text of the tweet from his BlackBerry, accusing Simson of "discrimination" -- not just against him, but every Canadian whose body shape falls outside the approved Liberal standard, (approved Liberal standard?)and even suggested that it was this kind of elitism that will keep the party from ever returning to its previous strength.
It was a masterful performance, really -- del Masterful, even -- given the fact that it was coming from a member who, just a few hours earlier, had repeatedly refused to withdraw the potentially unparliamentary comments that he made at the very committee meeting to which Simson's tweeting referred; a meeting that, as luck would have it, I was able to witness firsthand, what with liveblogging it and all."
While ostensibly questioning the witnesses -- a pair of senior PCO bureaucrats, who were there to discuss accountability for the ethical conduct for ministers -- del Mastro veered off into what can only be described as a rambling diatribe about his very favourite topic in the world, the sponsorship scandal.
No, it wasn't even close to being relevant to what was actually being discussed, but that didn't stop the honourable member from waxing indignant in retrospect over the whole affair. He did, however, manage to work the final sentence into the form of a question, demanding that the luckless bureaucrat concur that the trust Canadians have in their political institutions will continue to deteriorate until Liberal members "are held accountable for their crimes."
Given his peevish response to what was not, as far as I can see, a terribly unreasonable request to temper his words for the record, it's hard to work up much righteous outrage on del Mastro's behalf over a tweet sent by another backbencher on the other side of the parliamentary aisle, no matter how clumsy and devoid of actual wit.
And as blogger Impolitical points out, these kinds of outbursts are business as usual for this blustering fool. I wonder if he and John Baird hold contests for the most ridiculous look.
I came across this old video of Peter Van Loan and see that he didn't answer this reporter's questions either. Instead he tried to sneak in the 'sponsorship scandal' as an excuse for his party's wrong doing. The report also suggested that the RCMP had to get involved because the Reformers refused to hand over documents as per search warrant. The case he's speaking of is supposed to be heard this month. Hopefully, after that, criminal charges will be laid.
What Van Loan doesn't say here is that Elections Canada had investigated other complaints by, and on, other parties, but stated that while 'pooling' does take place, NO OTHER PARTY HAD TRIED TO TRANSFER EXPENSES!!!! They also said that even with the 'pooling' NO OTHER PARTY EXCEEDED SPENDING LIMITS!
The difference with what the Ref-Cons pulled was that they would transfer money to a riding, often where only a few thousand dollars had been raised. They would then immediately take the money out BUT THE EXPENSE WOULD BE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL RIDING DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NEVER INVOLVED IN ANY WAY.
THE AD COMPANY CONFIRMED THAT AT NO TIME DID THEY EVER DEAL WITH ANY LOCAL RIDING. THE RECEIPTS PRESENTED TO ELECTIONS CANADA WERE FALSIFIED, PHOTOCOPIED FROM LETTERHEAD, AND FORGED. SORRY BUDDY BUT THAT'S FRAUD. (Allegedly)
However, his recent interview about how long he had been sitting on the RCMP report, was sheer gibberish. Rumours are that he may have had it since April. I love the reporter's final comment "That was totally useless. Thank you." And as one reader noted: "It is about time reporters got aggressive with this government. The Harper Conservatives have been given a free pass for too long. Canadians expect more than crafted talking points from this partisan government. MPs from all parties should be angry with Van Loan for not giving them all the relevant information prior to a crucial vote."
Scrum Theatre: Who wants to know what Peter Van Loan finds interesting about the Firearms Commissioner's Report? November 5, 2009 By Kady O'Malley The public safety minister meets the press. It doesn't go well:
Question: How long have you had the report from the Commissioner of Firearms?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: The report from the Commissioner of Firearms has to be tabled tomorrow which it will be. I know that some information - some information on it will be coming out shortly. Some of it has already been released in the public accounts. The one that I know has attracted some interest is the number of times that the police access it which is close to three and a half million times. What's very interesting about that statistic is of those three and a half million times only 2.4 percent of the time is it actually information about the registration of a long-gun that would eliminated by the long-gun registry. If the bill to eliminate the long-gun registry is passed and becomes law, 97 percent of the times that the police utilize that information from the firearms centre would continue to be in place because of course the bill does not eliminate the requirement for licensing of gun owners and only, as I said, 2.4 percent of those queries had to do with information related to long-gun registration.
Question: (Inaudible)
Hon. Peter Van Loan: I am referring to the 2008 statistics. And what's more interesting -
Question: (Inaudible)
Hon. Peter Van Loan: If I could finish, what's more interesting -
Question: You haven't answered my question once yet though.
Hon. Peter Van Loan: If I could answer ----
Question: A different question from the one I asked you, sir.
Hon. Peter Van Loan: The report will be tabled tomorrow which is the requirement.
Question: How long have you had it?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: What is more interesting -
Question: Well, no -
Hon. Peter Van Loan: --- what is more interesting is that -
Question: Inaudible) what's more interesting we ask the questions. (ha, ha, ha)
Hon. Peter Van Loan: --- the proportion of times when in 2003, for example, eight percent, 8.3 percent of the time that police accessed information from the National Firearms Centre it was information related to the registry of long guns, right?
Question: Okay, great. (Several reporters speaking at once.)
Hon. Peter Van Loan: That proportion, that percentage has gone down every single year since 2003 -
Question: So how long have you had it?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: --- to last year when it was 2.4 percent. So what the information -
Question: How long have you had it?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: --- what this report demonstrates is exactly what we have been saying.
Question: How long have you had the Commissioner of Firearms report?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: If I could finish -
Question: No, sir, you haven't answered the question that I asked you. You're answering a completely different question.
Hon. Peter Van Loan: What the report demonstrates is what we have been saying all along -
Question: How long have you had the Firearms Commissioner's report, sir?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: --- that the registry - the long-gun registry is not used by police to prevent crime. It's thoroughly ineffective and that when we eliminate the long-gun registry, 97 percent - over 97 percent of the occasions -
Question: This isn't a news conference, these are questions. How long have you had the Firearms report?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: --- over 97 percent of the occasions that -
Question: This is not QP, okay?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: --- that individuals -
Question: We're asking you a question. How long have you had this report?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: --- that the police access the registry will be continued.
Question: How long have you had it? Has it been weeks?
Question: Why did you hide it before the vote? How long have you had this report?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: This report has not been hidden. I think when people see the report -
Question: How long have you had it then?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: --- when people see - it's been available to me a matter of days.
Question: How many days?
Question: Did your department receive it in April, is that true?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: I don't know. I don't believe so but I -
Question: When?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: I certainly did not see it back in April or May?
Question: Well, when did it (inaudible) your office?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: It's - I received it and looked at just recently, in recent days.
Question: When? Recently meaning what?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: However - in days. I could go back and find that for you. It's not terribly relevant because the information -
Question: (Inaudible)
Hon. Peter Van Loan: The information that is revealed is exactly what we say.
Question: But the information was revealed after the vote.
Hon. Peter Van Loan: The long-gun registry is not utilized by police to prevent police. In fact, the information that they utilize, 97 percent of it, more than 97 percent of it now is information they will still have after the elimination of the long-gun registry because we maintain -
Question: Useful information for MPs who don't know so why didn't you give it to them before yesterday's vote?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: Well, it's the same information. We had the report last year revealed the same trend. The year before revealed the same trend. The year before revealed the same trend. There's no new information in that. What we know is the same thing -
Question: So you decide what information should be or should not be made public because you don't find it's interesting enough?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: We release it as the statute requires, as the rules require and it'll be released tomorrow in accordance with the rules.
Question: How long have you had the statistics about that?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: That's what we do with reports. But what's interesting is the report has said -
Question: You decide what's interesting ---
Hon. Peter Van Loan: --- every single year that the information -
Question: --- you decide what people can know before they vote so you ---
Hon. Peter Van Loan: No, we table the report as we are required to.
Question: After the vote though.Hon.
Peter Van Loan: What's interesting though is this is -
Question: No, you don't get to decide what's interesting.
Hon. Peter Van Loan: No, here -
Question: We're asking you a very simple question. When did you get that report?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: Here's one more - here's one more thing -
Question: When did you get that report, sir?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: --- here's one more thing, in fairness, that's interesting about the report.
Question: We don't care what you find interesting.
Hon. Peter Van Loan: What you're going to see tomorrow in this report produced by the National Firearms Centre to justify the existence is that the statistics I just gave you were not included. Whoever put it together didn't put in there the information that only 2.4 percent of those three and a half million queries were actually related to information about a long-gun registration number or about a serial number of a gun. Only 4.5 percent.
Question: Why do you think that is?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: And that shows -
Question: (Inaudible) that's why you didn't make it public? Is that what you're saying?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: No, that information was not put there by the people at the National Firearms Registry so you should ask them why that information wasn't there. We've gone and got that information -
Question: And that's why you decided not to make it public, because that information was not there?
Hon. Peter Van Loan: No, no. We're putting it out there on the public table at the time that's required under the law. But the more important question is why was that piece of information I gave you not revealed by the Firearms Centre and that's a very important piece of information for Canadians to have. That's why I'm sharing it with you. Thank you very much.
The video above is just to remind Canadians that the 'In and Out' scandal has not yet been dealt with. The Reform-Conservatives are suing Canadian taxpayers because they claim that they are being picked on. Apparently you are legally allowed to forge receipts to transfer expenses, and then spend more than the legal limit on an election. Who knew?
A few Ref-Con Myths:
1. They said that all parties did it and in particular tried to turn it against the Liberals. However, Elections Canada checked their records and determined that NO ONE HAD EVER DONE THIS BEFORE!
2. They claimed that some one from Elections Canada leaked the news of the raid on their offices, and that's why the Liberals turned up with video cameras. Elections Canada confirmed that they had been in the offices for 2 1/2 hours before anyone from the Liberal Party showed up, tipped off by the Media, who were there first.
3. They said that bringing in the RCMP was just for show, but Elections Canada stated that they only called in the RCMP when the Conservatives refused to co-operate and hand over the material as requested by the search warrant.
4. They called this a vendetta, again perpetrated by the Liberals. However, many in the media had already heard rumours of an election financing scheme, which is why they automatically asked "is this about the 'in and out'". They were apparently just waiting for the news to break.
The civil suit has held the Media at bay, but it is supposed to start next month. After that, let's hope with their new tough on crime measures, that they reserve 66 cells. They may need them.
But back to their current scandals. There was a great Op-ed piece in the Hill Times, written by former politician Sheila Copps, that I thought I'd share.
OTTAWA—Cheque mate. Except in this case the king isn't quite cornered yet. With vigorous denials emanating from the Prime Minister last week, Canadians may be forgiven for thinking the decision to replace a government logo with a Conservative one was a devious plot of rogue members run amok.
As evidence mounts, the biggest crosschecked loser is the Prime Minister himself. His early denials leave Canadians with the lingering impression that the Prime Minister can calmly dissemble the truth. With at least 47 Conservative elected officials involved in 181 cheque presentations, Stephen Harper signed some of them himself ....
The Reform-Conservatives are clearly out of control. Does their corruption know no bounds?
As the video montage of just a few of their scandals suggests, we just have to lower our expectations. But how much lower? Should we just say do what you want with our money because we no longer give a damn? Unbelievable.
OTTAWA - The Harper government spent well over $100,000 staging a one-hour event in June to deliver an update on its efforts to help the recession-ravaged economy. Invoices obtained by The Canadian Press through the Access to Information Act show a nominal bill to taxpayers of $108,000 for the carefully scripted "town hall" meeting in Cambridge, Ont.
... Critics say it's just the latest example of what they're calling a Tory penchant for leveraging public money for partisan gain. "It fits in with a whole pattern with this government where they are basically using tax dollars to promote themselves to voters," said Gerry Nicholls of the right-wing web portal Libertaspost.com. That's clearly wrong. It's clearly a waste of tax dollars."
... "If you go back to Judge Gomery's report (on sponsorship), the No. 1 thing that he says is these guys get to a point where they simply don't see the difference anymore between government money and party money ...
IS THIS REALLY CONSERVATIVE? IS STEPHEN HARPER REALLY THE BEST CHOICE FOR CANADA?
Dr. Joan Russow discusses this in PEJ (Peace, Earth and Justice) news. Writing from Europe, she found the entire thing absurd, and couldn't believe that he was able to get away with not only simply ignoring the alleged fraud charges, but also calling an election to cover up a possible crime.
The young man in the video above also brings up an important point. While the opposition parties believed that they would not be facing an election until 2009, the Conservatives were busy getting their candidates in place and readying themselves for the next bold move of a man who believes that the law only pertains to the other guys.
In fact, our own local Conservative 'also ran' Brian Abrams, had already hired a company to make cold calls for him in Kingston, an amount that he didn't have to include in his financial statement, which may have put him over the legal limit.
Now an organization, called 'Democracy Watch' is taking Harper to court for breaking his own election law. Machinations leading up to this election clearly show that this was part of a much bigger initiative on behalf of the Conservatives.
OTTAWA — Advocacy group Democracy Watch will try Tuesday to convince a judge to rule that Prime Minister Stephen Harper broke his own fixed election date law and violated the Canadian Charter of Rights when he called an election last fall.
In early September, 2008, Harper asked Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to dissolve Parliament, claiming that the opposition parties weren’t prepared to support his legislative agenda. Jean agreed, and Canadians went to the polls on Oct. 14.
But Canada’s fixed election date law — one of the first pieces of legislation the Harper government introduced upon winning power in 2006 — said a vote should not have been held until Oct. 19, 2009 unless the government fell on a confidence vote in the House of Commons.No such confidence vote was held last fall.
The Conservatives introduced the fixed election date law in order, they argued in 2006, to prevent prime ministers from calling snap elections to win partisan advantage. They pointed, for example, to former prime minister Jean Chretien’s decision in 2007 (SB. 2000) to call an election less than three years into his second majority government before Stockwell Day could consolidate his young leadership of the Canadian Alliance.
Day was easily bested by Chretien who won his third successive majority.
That election set in motion a series of events that led to Day’s ouster, setting the stage for Harper to succeed him. Harper would go on to unite the right and win the leadership of the new Conservative Party of Canada, losing an election in 2004 to Paul Martin but then winning on his second try in 2006.
Last fall, Harper’s political opponents accused him of trying to do just what Chretien had done: engineer a federal election in order to take advantage of a weak opponent in Stephane Dion and the Liberals.
But, even though the Liberals suffered one of their worst showings ever at the polls, Harper failed to win a majority though he did win a stronger minority government.
That minority government is now in peril, with the Liberals threatening to introduce a motion of non-confidence at their earliest opportunity. Neither the NDP nor the Bloc Quebecois have given their unqualified support to the government which means Canadians could be going to the polls within weeks.
MPs return to the House of Commons on Sept. 14.
In the meantime, Democracy Watch hopes to prevent future prime ministers from doing what Harper did last year.
“Overwhelming evidence shows that the intent and effect of the fixed election date measures prohibits the prime minister from calling an election before his governing party has lost a confidence vote in the House of Commons,” said Democracy Watch co-ordinator Duff Conacher earlier this year.
“The clear intent of the fixed election date measures is to make elections fair for all political parties and citizens wanting to participate in the election by letting everyone know well in advance when it will happen.”
Democracy Watch says it is an advocate for increased government and corporate accountability and transparency . It receives its funding through donations from individuals and from citizen groups.
UPDATE: I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that Verner did indeed grant CP’s French-language service an interview yesterday. According to the heritage minister, the true beneficiaries of the cuts are—wait for it—the artists! “What we’re hoping to do,” Verner said, “is to look at how we could create a new program or new avenues that will be even more effective and have a stronger impact for our culture outside the country.” (Wonder who wrote that? It sure wasn't Josee, because I'm convinced she doesn't believe in that tripe)
-Not surprisingly, the Conservatives are on their heels in the region. The issue of cuts to culture is stuck in the headlines and Conservative candidates can’t walk ten feet without being asked about them. Inevitably, these candidates answer in vague generalities (see above), so people keep asking about them. There’s a moral in here somewhere. (Harper has turned poor Josee into another talking head)
Rather than voting in the riding where she’s running for a seat (Louis-Saint-Laurent), like most politicians do, Verner voted in Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier, where she lives. Apparently, Verner was unaware that, as an incumbent MP, she is allowed to vote in the riding she represents.
She was a Conservative now and in the Conservative Party women are mere window dressing. If they wanted an MP to work for them, they should have voted for the Bloc, Liberals, Green or NDP, where women still have a voice.
Then she immediately left to make sandwiches because she heard the boys were getting hungry and they got down right cranky if they didn't get their lunch on time.
It's a group that usually flies under the radar. This time however, the gallery was packed and two extra rooms were opened with live video feed of the proceedings. Verner arrived 10 minutes late and left before each senator could ask a question.lanked by four senior bureaucrats, Verner's voice shook slightly as she read from a prepared statement. (The big boys were there making sure she behaved.)
The 13-word clause would give the minister the discretionary power to decide if "public financial support of the production would not be contrary to public policy" and the ability to deny production companies Canadian Content tax credits on that basis.
Verner tried to explain the bill as closing "a loophole" that theoretically would allow illegal material like hate speech and kiddie porn to quality for the credit."The policy rationale for the 'contrary to public policy' provision is quite simple," she said. "It would ensure that the government has the ability, in exceptional circumstances, to exclude from public support certain material, material that is potentially illegal under the Criminal Code, such as indecent material, hate propaganda and child pornography." (They already had that power. You need new writers Josee)
During questioning, Liberal Senator Pierrette Ringuette pressed Verner about the vagueness of the provision. Canadian filmmakers have warned that if the tax credits are uncertain, financing for films could evaporate."Why not list the prohibited material in the bill — child pornography, hate propaganda?" she asked in French.
Artists oppose the bill because they argue it is tantamount to government censorship. Director David Cronenberg told Xtra that he is worried about the bill because the minister of heritage's "version of what is acceptable or not is going to be subject to nothing because the guidelines are so vague."
Despite what you may have read or heard," Verner said, "the 'contrary to public policy' test is not a new concept. It has been part of the tax credit landscape since its inception in 1995 through income tax regulations."As a regulation, it's been used twice in the last seven years, once in 2002 and once in 2007. Both were related to porn, which is already excluded from receiving the tax benefit. (So why do we need a new bill just because Charles McVety wanted it?)
Meanwhile, the banking committee has quietly scheduled at least two weeks of witness testimony on the film clause. On the list is actor and director Sarah Polley, who will appear before the committee Apr 10.
That means that a clause-by-clause analysis of the bill — which is hundreds of pages long — may not happen until the end of April, at the earliest. The opposition-dominated committee could postpone deliberating on the bill for months if it chooses. (An illegal election thwarted the bill, but it got buried in the last budget.)
Perhaps there aren't too many people who have experienced censorship personally, but I have," says David Cronenberg, one of Canada's preeminent filmmakers.
"It ends up being one person suppressing the expression of another. However you slice it, it's always subjective and it's always maddening and it's always personal.
"The director of such iconoclastic films as the Oscar-nominated Eastern Promises and The Brood leads a chorus of outrage from artists, film industry insiders, and opposition MPs and senators against the Conservative government's Bill C-10.
The bill, which is actually an omnibus bill containing hundreds of amendments to the Income Tax Act, also contains a 13-word clause which will give the Ministry of Canadian Heritage power to deny crucial tax credits to any Canadian film or TV production deemed "contrary to public policy.
"If necessary, we will not hesitate to offer amendments to ensure the tax code is not abused in this manner."If the Liberal-dominated committee decides to amend C-10, the bill will be sent back to the House of Commons for approval."We are concerned that if Bill C-10 is allowed to pass in its current form, the way will be paved for the use of Canada's tax system as a de facto censor of film and video production in Canada," Hervieux-Payette says.
In response to the criticism, the Ministry of Canadian Heritage issued a press release Mar 3. "Bill C-10 has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with the integrity of the tax system. The goal is to ensure public trust in how tax dollars are spent," the press release states."Under the current rules, the creator of a film that includes content that may be subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code could technically still be eligible for a film tax credit under the Income Tax Act," the press release explains.
"This is a legal absurdity; a loophole that successive governments — first Liberal, then Conservative — have worked to close. This is a matter of good housekeeping, consistent with previous policy and what is done in other cultural sectors."
"Ironically, even though the government is talking about tax-credit housekeeping and trying to trivialize this bill, it is in essence giving the power of censorship to one person, the Minister of Heritage," counters Cronenberg. "And her version of what is acceptable or not is going to be subject to nothing because the guidelines are so vague."
Jim Abbott, Conservative MP for Kootenay-Columbia and Parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, told the House of Commons Mar 5 that guidelines for the bill have yet to be drafted. "They cannot exist before Bill C-10 is passed. There are simply no guidelines to provide. When Bill C-10 is passed, we will be holding consultations," he promised.
But Abbotsford Conservative MP Ed Fast hinted at the guidelines' direction. "Throughout the years most federal funding programs that support cultural works have included guidelines stating that certain materials, such as hate propaganda, excessively violent material, or pornography, are not eligible for government assistance.
In the same way, Bill C-10 addresses only the most extreme and objectionable of film and video productions," he told the House Mar 5."We simply want to ensure that public funds, in other words taxpayers' hard earned dollars, are not invested in productions which are highly objectionable and offensive in their content," he said, adding that privately funded films won't be affected.
"I've made five features that have received tax credits," says queer filmmaker John Greyson, director of Proteus, Uncut and Lilies, "and I'm pleased to say they've all managed to offend someone. That's my job description. I certainly hope they offend Stephen Harper and everything he stands for. But does that give him the right to shut me down?"
The proposed changes had rightwing evangelical Charles McVety crowing. The president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, which promotes the idea that homosexuality can be "cured," publicly claimed his lobbying of cabinet ministers and officials in the prime minister's office helped push the government toward a new moral offensive to promote "conservative values." Officials at Canadian Heritage and other ministries deny meeting with McVety.
Film and television insiders maintain that even if a small number of productions are targeted, the impact on the $4.8-billion industry will be devastating — already there have been news reports in the US media about a possible censorship chill in Canada.
The Board of the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, the Directors Guild of Canada and the performers' union ACTRA are all opposed to the bill."
All filmmaking in Canada is independent filmmaking," Cronenberg explains. "We don't have studios here with their own financial backing. When you are trying to produce a movie in Canada you have to put together a patchwork of financing that involves distribution advances in many countries, private investors possibly, and investment from bodies like Telefilm, government funding bodies.
All of that is incredibly volatile. Things keep falling out; it's like juggling 20 balls at once. And the stable platform that a Canadian producer depends on is government funding — that is the least volatile, the most stable. And what this bill does is to destabilize that platform."
If Bill C-10 passes unamended, the ministry could deny tax credits at any point in the production schedule, resulting in what Cronenberg calls, "an absolute catastrophe to all the investors in the film because the whole thing would fall apart like a house of cards."
The lack of guidelines makes him even more nervous. "They're putting a lot into us giving them censorship powers... to later be discussed? That just indicates what I was saying.It's of the moment, at the whim of politics and personal taste," he claims.
Citing the famous aphorism that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, Cronenberg calls the fight against censorship "a constant struggle." "It's not going to go away. I remember we were fighting Bill C-53 many years ago in the Mulroney era. That bill was defeated. But it keeps coming back because there will always be people who want to impose their sensibility on everybody else," he says.
Josee was a good little Conservative gal. When her bosses (allegedly) asked her to launder money for the Party she brought her own bottle of 'Cheer'.
When they asked her to sell the country on censorship, she again brought the 'Cheer'; yelling 'give me a 'B' ... give me an 'i' ... give me an 'l', give me another 'l' ...now how about a 'C' and a '10'?
And of course other gals like Helena Guergis and Rhona Ambrose joined the pyramid, before serving sandwiches and cookies to the boys. Giggle .. giggle.
The above may be tongue in cheek, but what is wrong with the women in the Conservative Party? Did they really get into politics to do as they were told? If Ms Verner didn't like the bill, why didn't she just say so? Instead she hid from reporters, hoping no one would find her.
What a disgrace. How can they possibly encourage young women to consider a career in politics, when they've allowed themselves to be nothing more than human props?
Angus called for a two-minute break between hearings around noon Apr 10, but for a short time after he adjourned the meeting, Angus' microphone was left on. His conversation with an unidentified man was broadcast over the Senate's live internet audio feed.
"The government has to bite the bullet," he was heard saying. "The minister agrees, she told me she hates the law." Angus was heard on the internet audio feed for another few seconds before his microphone was cut off, but his comments were hard to make out.
Representatives from Verner and Angus' offices were quick to downplay the claims."He's wrong," says a spokesperson for Verner, reached at the minister's office. The minister herself had no comment when contacted by xtra.ca.
A representative for Angus defended the senator. "The context is that I don't think that anyone realized it was going to cause such a controversy," he says. "Probably the minister is just tired of dealing with the bill."
Bill C-10 passed through the House of Commons last fall in one day, with unanimous support from all parties. But when news broke in February that the bill contained a clause that amounts to censorship, arts groups and opposition MPs were outraged. The Ministry of Canadian Heritage has been on the defensive since then.
Verner appeared before the Senate committee Apr 2 to defend the bill, saying that it would close "a loophole" that theoretically would allow illegal material like hate speech and kiddie porn to qualify for the credit.
She repeatedly tried to pass the buck to the Liberals, since an earlier version of the film clause appeared in several bills between 2002 and 2006.
Witnesses at the Senate committee Apr 10 said the bill would discourage banks from financing edgy film and television productions, because tax credits are awarded late in the production process. "The very existence of such provisions creates financial uncertainty," said Sandra Cunningham of the Canadian Film and Television Producers Association.
Most witnesses have called on senators to remove the "contrary to public policy" section of the bill, or at least establish the guidelines before the bill is passed. As it stands, the specific guidelines are not contained in C-10, and would be open for change at the whim of the ministry of heritage.
"We have already seen that there has been enormous controversy and censure of some of the most important Canadian films ever made," said Noa Mendelsohn Aviv of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Apr 9. "There were calls not to fund films about abortion and gay youth.
Should these too have been suppressed in the name of public policy?"
"If we give the government a free hand to pick off certain movies and chill our artists, how many more innovative films on controversial topics will get made?"
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's polling numbers are dropping dramatically in Quebec, but if the Conservatives hope to have any kind of a future in the province they need to "patch things up" with Premier Jean Charest's provincial Liberals, says a leading expert on Quebec politics.
Antonia Maioni, a political science professor at McGill University, said the Conservatives made a "strategic error" by relying so heavily on the ADQ. She said they not only misjudged the depth of support for the ADQ, but they also overestimated the scale of the party's campaign machine. Prof. Maioni said that if the Conservatives hope to have any kind of a future in Quebec then they need to "patch things up" with the provincial Liberals, led by Premier Jean Charest ...
There are many reasons to dislike Conservative MP Jacques Gourde. He's dishonest and rude. But his sexist remarks in the House of Commons, were a little over the top.
Mind you, he's not really unlike most of the men in the Conservative caucus, while the women in the party just smile and pretend not to notice. Though in the case of Helena Guergis, I don't think she does.
The 2006 election was a surprise to Quebecers as it brought several Conservative/Reform/Alliance MPs to Parliament.
Of course at the time they weren't aware of the alleged money laundering scheme that could cut short the political careers of several, not that they have much chance in Quebec now anyway. (nothing has been proven in court and won't be until this matter is allowed to be heard in court. The Conservatives still declare they did nothing wrong)
After the horrendous attack on Francophones during the Parliamentary crisis, that further divided the country, I think the bridges have been burned.
But in 2006, they were flying high. Promises made by Stephen Harper in Quebec City, and the naivete of some candidates who really thought that this new Conservative Party was going to clean up government, had an affect on voters willing to give this new party a chance.
They are Sylvie Boucher, Daniel Petit and Luc Harvey, three Conservative candidates who were as surprised as anyone Monday night when they overcame strong Bloc Quebecois incumbents to win their Quebec City seats. "I had a terrific team," Boucher, the new MP of Beauport-Limoilou, said when her win over Bloc MP Christian Simard was confirmed shortly after midnight.
"It consisted of my two daughters and a family friend."
Entering the election campaign, Stephen Harper's Conservatives counted on winning Quebec ridings where star candidates Josee Verner, Lawrence Cannon, Maxime Bernier and Jean-Pierre Blackburn were running. Then, as Tory poll numbers began to rise, they started to talk about a breakthrough in three more ridings south of Quebec City.
That's a best-case scenario of seven wins in Quebec, but someone forgot to tell those casting the ballots. On Monday, they voted in a total of 10 Conservatives.
Two of them - Cannon in Pontiac and Jean-Pierre Blackburn in Jonquiere-Alma - have some experience in government and are probably on their way into the new Harper cabinet. But the others are virtual unknowns outside their ridings, and no one knows what they might say or do in office.
That could represent a risk to Stephen Harper, according to Christian Dufour, a political scientist at the Ecole d'administration publique.
Still, the election of Conservative MPs in traditional Bloc ridings represents a major breakthrough for the Tories and shows Harper's decision to reach out to the province has paid off.
"I don't think they expected to play such a big role in the Canadian victory," Dufour said.
Sure enough, Petit said he realized he might win Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles only around 3 p.m. on Monday. The lawyer, who was a Conservative candidate and organizer in the 1980s, was shaking hands with some of his backers outside polling stations when voters he did not know came up to shake his hand.
In the 2004 election, Marceau won with 52 per cent of the vote and the Conservative candidate placed third with 16 per cent.
Petit confessed the Conservative Party was shooting for second place in his riding, hoping to make gains from the Bloc and the Liberals. In the end, "we had 1,000 votes more," he noted.
Dufour said one of the Bloc's big mistakes in the campaign was to assume it could roll to victory on the anger over the sponsorship scandal.
Another mistake was to assume the only federalist voters left in Quebec are anglophones. The proof is that the 10 MPs were elected in francophone ridings.
Harvey defeated Bloc incumbent Roger Clavet in Louis-Hebert riding by 103 votes. "I was the last one elected," he said, adding his organization was minor league compared with the Bloc machine.
Harvey is a strategic business planner for a Quebec City financial services boutique. As of Monday night, the new MP had no plans to move to Ottawa. "Tomorrow, I go back to the office," he said. "I have been away and there are some files I absolutely have to deal with." Ultimately, the Conservative performance shows there is still some interest in federalism in Quebec, Dufour said.
"There's a part of the Quebec population that is again playing the Canada game." But he warned that Harper must deliver on his promises. "He has a historic challenge. He is under tight surveillance."
It was one of the prettiest love stories in modern political literature. Stephen Harper went to Quebec City in mid-December and captivated his audience with his vision of an Ottawa that would take Quebec's needs more seriously and a Quebec that would be better-represented in Ottawa. Quebecers were enchanted and the city voted in six Conservatives.
The assumption, at least in English Canada, has been that Quebec City's fervour would persuade other cities across the province to swoon before the Conservatives at the next election -- and so it may prove. But it is not a foregone conclusion and there are signs of tension in the relationship already.
Quebec City's zoo, opened in 1931 and long a symbol of civic pride, is slated to close this Friday and the federal government is getting at least part of the blame. Thousands of Quebecers, including Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, protested the closure outside the zoo at the weekend and the letters page of the local papers have been full of condemnation for politicians of all stripes.
"You are a minority government but you won't be there for long, believe me," wrote one correspondent to Le Soleil, referring to the Harper government. "The population will remember the little interest you brought to our region. Ever since the election, there has been silence, total silence."
The city's federalist mayor, Andree Boucher, has also been critical of Ottawa, saying Conservative MPs must "do what they were elected to do on the issue." Ottawa claims it never committed cash to keep the zoo open, privately pointing out that to do so would prompt a flood of requests from ailing zoos across the country.
The Jardin Zoologique de Quebec is provincially owned and the feds point out that the province has not stepped in with a rescue package. The Prime Minister's Office says it has committed to providing $110-million to help the city celebrate its 400th anniversary in 2008 and is looking at ways of upgrading the city's airport.
"No one expects the government to say yes to everything. Our commitments are clear in Quebec City and the zoo is not one of them," said a spokesman.
All of which would be fair enough, had the Conservative MP for Charlesbourg-Jacques Cartier, Daniel Petit, not pledged 22 million federal dollars to help save the zoo during the election campaign.
The Bloc has leapt on the commitment -- and on statements by Josee Verner, the regional minister -- that she'd like to keep the zoo open. "What is Josee Verner doing now we know it's going to be closed? She's not saying anything," Mr. Duceppe said.
Richard Marceau, the charismatic young Bloc MP whose defeat by Mr. Petit was one of the biggest shocks on election night, said Quebec City is a test case for the Conservatives. "They have almost every seat in the city but if they cannot deliver there, what does it say for the rest of the province they want to win?"
This remains very much a local difficulty for the Conservatives. Mr. Duceppe's tub-thumping is unlikely to deflect him from propping up Mr. Harper's government in the House of Commons, at least until the Quebec provincial election. But it will be a concern to the Prime Minister that such a key electoral battleground has become mired in controversy.
When the first shipping crates carrying away sorry-looking tree kangaroos, lemurs and bearded dragons, hit the evening newscasts, the honeymoon will be officially over.
Daniel Petit, the Conservative MP for Charlebourg-Haute-Saint-Charles, Quebec; was one of the candidates allegedly involved in money laundering during the 2005/2006 election campaign. (nothing has been proven in court and won't be until this matter is allowed to be heard in court. The Conservatives still declare they did nothing wrong)
OTTAWA -- A backbench Tory MP from Quebec City has landed himself in hot water after describing Quebecers as a bunch of "illiterates" when it comes to the English language.
Speaking about education at a parliamentary hearing, Daniel Petit, the Conservative MP for Charlebourg-Haute-Saint-Charles, said that his assessment was based on a comparison with the Alberta school system where he lived in the past. He explained that his four children studied both in Quebec and Alberta, but that the latter province invested more in its education system. "Whether in elementary or secondary (school), English is practically swept under the rug (in Quebec)," Petit, 60, said last week at the House of Commons official languages committee. "At the university level, it's even worse. We have illiterates of the second language."
But Petit's remarks contradict recent statistics which revealed that French-speaking Quebecers were more likely to be bilingual than their English-speaking counterparts in the rest of Canada. A new research analysis by the Association for Canadian Studies concluded that many francophones are getting enough exposure to their second language in school to propel them to excel in bilingualism in their mid-teen years and after they hit the workforce.
"Whatever (francophones) have learned, however uneven or insufficient their learning is, it seems be enough to push them into a very significant degree of bilingualism, once they've finished school," said Jack Jedwab, executive director of the association, in an interview. "Anglophones in the rest of the country, don't seem to have the opportunity or excitement . . . about learning the other language."
Critics quickly pounced on the gaffe from the Tory MP who has developed a reputation for stirring up controversy.
"It's insulting and offensive toward Quebecers," said Michel Guimond, the parliamentary whip for the Bloc Quebecois. "Once a person calls Quebecers illiterate, regardless of which area (or language), it's totally unacceptable and showing contempt."
Guimond said the remarks also demonstrate the weakness and lack of credibility of the Conservative party in Quebec.
Petit, who is the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister, has previously faced calls for his resignation and was forced to apologize in 2006 for drawing links between school shootings in Montreal and the integration of immigrants in Quebec. He was also chastised by the Bloc last fall for suggesting that the opposition party played a role in recent riots in a suburban neighbourhood of Montreal.
"How do you spell pathetic?" asked Liberal MP Denis Coderre. "Frankly, there have been so many times where that guy showed a lack of judgment and nonsense (that) I don't know what he's doing there (as an MP). People from (his riding) must be ashamed to have an MP like that."
An aide in Petit's Ottawa office said that the MP was very busy, and would not likely have time for an interview to explain his comments.
But when asked if the remarks represented the views of the Harper government, Heritage Minister James Moore said the government was committed to investing money across the country in support of the official languages.
"For us, there are two official languages in our country, and we are protecting them," Moore said in the Commons on Wednesday.
Coderre said the government should force Petit to apologize and straighten him up to demonstrate that it doesn't endorse what he is saying.
When Conservative MP Lee Richardson blamed immigrants for the rise in the crime rate, many people were surprised ("Talk to the police. Look at who's committing these crimes. They’re not the kid that grew up next door.”).
He wasn't even an a former Reform Party member, who were notorious for making racist remarks. Richardson had been a Progressive Conservative.
Well Daniel Petit, Conservative MP for Charlebourg-Haute-Saint-Charles, Quebec, wasn't a Reform Party MP either, but actually ran for the PC Party back in the 1980's, and was a party organizer.
Liberal MPs are demanding Prime Minister Stephen Harper expel a Tory MP who suggested school shootings could be curbed in Quebec if more money were given to immigration programs.
Although Quebec City-area MP Daniel Petit has since apologized and retracted his comments, Liberal MP Ralph Goodale still demanded Petit be removed from the Conservative caucus. "This situation does not need pontification," Goodale said in the House of Commons during question period. "It needs rectification."
When asked about Montreal's Dawson College rampage last week, Petit drew attention to the fact that none of the three gunmen who blasted their way onto Montreal campuses since 1989 was an old-stock francophone.
He suggested a solution to curbing school shootings would be scrapping the gun registry and using the savings to help immigrants integrate better in Quebec.
"So I think the $1 billion that we spent on the [gun] registry should have been spent on the education and integration of immigrants in Montreal."
On his website, Liberal MP Denis Coderre also called for Petit to be ejected from caucus and the Commons standing committee on justice and human rights.
"It's scandalous that a member of Parliament would make comments like that," Coderre said. "Mr. Petit demonstrated shocking hypocrisy after voting in favour of a motion I moved on Wednesday evening rebuking a Globe and Mail journalist who made similar comments. Does the prime minister condone the absurd and irresponsible things his MP said? Does Mr. Petit have the support of the other members of the Quebec Conservative caucus?"
Article raises controversy
Earlier this week, Harper and Quebec Premier Jean Charest rebuked Globe and Mail writer Jan Wong, who wrote a recent article that suggested Quebec's francophone culture may have contributed to the Dawson College shootings.
Harper's office reportedly reacted angrily when Petit's comments were made public Thursday and contacted the MP, who issued an apology almost immediately.
"I made inappropriate remarks," Petit said in a statement. "I withdraw them entirely because you cannot draw any link between the integration of immigrants in Quebec and the terrible tragedy at Dawson College."
Jason Kenney, parliamentary secretary to the prime minister, said Petit's retraction is good enough.
"The member for Charlesbourg has recognized that those comments were inappropriate, which is precisely why he has retracted the comments unequivocally and apologized," Kenney told the House of Commons. (Kenney? That's rich. He has even less integrity than Daniel Petit.)
Some Conservatives could still face charges over the "In and Out" election scheme in 2006, that allowed them to undemocratically spend more money in the final days of the campaign; but also cheat taxpayers out of almost a million dollars.
